The press and Obama: where’s that lovin’ feeling?
Please go to PJ for this piece of mine about the end of the press’s love affair with Obama.
Did I say “the end?” To paraphrase (and invert) the famous Churchill quote:
Now this is not the end. It is not even the end of the beginning. But it is, perhaps, the beginning of the end.
Another great essay Ms. K.
BTW, Churchill made the aforementioned quote after allied successes in North Africa.
We can only hope the press begins to do its job – without fanfare or excuse or even apology. But I’m not holding my breath.
If I may quote you: “…there is something “off” about the man….That “something” is hard to describe. But it is more character than policy-driven, and more of an absence than a presence.”
Excellent. It is hard to say more. It is hard to put your finger on…nothing.
The term I would use is diabolos – and I would say that Obama is very much like what the diabolical looks like in person. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think he is unique or some personal anti-christ. He’s run of the mill demonic and there are millions like him, and all of us are probably that way some times. There’s nothing real there. All is hidden there. All good turns to evil there, and no evil turns to good there. It’s classic Augustine: Evil is a lack, an absence, a privation….It’s a shadow of a man but not the real man to cast the shadow. It’s a shade.
I say about him that he’s not American (in spirit not law). He’s not “one of us”. He does not love America. He does not like Americans. He hates the country he is president of. He is our Rev. Wright “God damn America” President.
That is, in fact, what he is. I’ll believe otherwise when I see evidence otherwise.
Mark Steyn had a great column today about Obama as a postmodern person (if the term ‘person’ can be justly applied to one of those creatures). He began with a story about a Canadian who wanted to be prime minister but who barely thought of Canada as home. He ended with Obama being the first Pres to think he is above the office, and above the country he leads! He says at the end “In recent months, a lot of Americans have said to me that they had no idea the new president would feel so “weird.” But, in fact, he’s not weird. True, he’s not, even in Democratic terms, a political figure – as, say, Clinton or Biden are. Instead, he’s the product of the broader culture: There are millions of people like Barack Obama, the eternal students of a vast lethargic transnational campus for whom global compassion and the multicultural pose are merely the modish gloss on a cult of radical grandiose narcissism. As someone once said, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” When you’ve spent that long waiting in line for yourself, it’s bound to be a disappointment.”
Column is here:http://article.nationalreview.com/436145/the-very-model-of-a-modern-major-generalist/mark-steyn
How true. Obama is the flower of the plant that’s been nurtured for 40 years now. That plant is like a parable from the gospels – about tearing down the tree that bears no fruit or that bears bad fruit. How long it has been watered and tended. How rotten have its fruits been.
We have no one but our own selves to blame. Like David and Uriah and Nathan. Everything points right back to us.
Hi Neo,
You need to check your quote against the link. You wrote yours backward. I’m not being snippy. You either have to triple check the quote – or use cut and paste. Its easy to get things like that backward.
James
James: And you need to check what I wrote in my post!
Note the following: “to paraphrase (and invert) the famous Churchill quote…”
Here are some definitions for you:
paraphrase=a restatement of a text in other words…
invert=(1) To turn inside out or upside down; (2) To reverse the position, order, or condition of
Great article, neo.
The question is what we should do about the MSM. They’re obviously corrupt morally and intellectually, if not financially.
Good comment, Mike Mc.
But I don’t blame myself or anyone else who saw what was coming. The cult of personality surrounding Obama alarmed me from the very beginning. I blame those who fell for the hype, and most especially the media and educational establishment for spreading the propaganda.
The media attempted to throw the election to Gore in 2000 by publicizing Bush’s ancient drunk driving charge the weekend before Election Day. The fact that the winning margin was razor-thin shows that they nearly succeeded. Then in 2004, Dan Rather and CBS News promulgated the clearly fraudulent TANG memos in September. The blogosphere blew the whistle on that fraud.
I think the MSM learned their lesson, and in 2008 they closed ranks around Obama, their preferred candidate. They overwhelmed the blogosphere by sheer volume and repetition, as well as their adamant refusal to explore–or even acknowledge–any of Obama’s shady associations and background.
For the press to be questioning Obama at this late date is a little like locking the barn door after the horse has escaped. They may eventually turn on him, but they will enthusiastically support the next leftist who comes along. Maybe Hillary in 2012. They could even portray her as a moderate, by comparison to Obama.
I hope and pray that your analysis that the Hostage Crisis under Carter is the more appropriate template and not Katrina because the former is grounded in fact and the latter in media spin.
Herein, the insight of a PJ commenter:
38. 415woman
I well remeber Carter and the hostage crisis. One thing Americans hate is the feeling of being powerless, of being unable to change things. The one thing that has been a source of pride to Americans (even liberal ones!) is that when something bad happens, we can usually figure out how to fix it. With Carter, not only did he not know how to fix it, he never even really tried. He dithered on what to do when the hostages were initially taken, and then, after finally making a decision to actually do something, did not give the military what it needed to succesfully carry out the mission.
The True Believers on the Left are starting to criticize Obama, and the media has noticed. The Democratic pragmatists (“Just Win, Baby”) are realizing that he is electoral poison for the Party.
That only leaves African Americans as reliable supporters.
The MSM may hate Republicans, but they hate losing to Republicans even more.
The cult of personality surrounding Obama alarmed me from the very beginning.
Exactly. Perhaps neo or someone else with insight into psychology can explain why leftists are so uniquely prone to deifying their leaders. It seems most peculiar. North Korea is the poster boy for this, of course, but all of them do it to varying extents (remember Mao making 30 knots swimming down the Yangtze River, IIRC?).
It’s not enough that their champion is wise, or experienced, or capable. (They’re still looking for one of those.) He’s got to be superhuman, the fount of all wisdom, goodness, and creativity, someone who should be worshiped by all of us unworthy proles.
It’s bizarre. Yet we have grownups of more or less sound mind (in a soft focus view) proclaiming Obama to be some sort of God (Evan Thomas), wanting to have sex with him after shaving their legs (Judith Warner), gushing girlishly about the crease of his pants (David Brooks), singing songs to him, giving him the “O” salute, and failing to laugh when the adored one says he’ll make the oceans recede and heal the earth. It’s like a mass psychosis.
All I want is a competent CEO. I don’t want to have his babies, don’t want to take long showers with him, don’t want to pray to him for salvation, don’t want him to provide my life with meaning. Just keep the Muslims and other terrorists at bay, and the streets free from crime and potholes, while I get on with my life. Doesn’t seem too much to ask, now, does it?
Occam, I have a suggestion: ask a bible believing preacher about why the left deifies their leaders.
It’s sad how little the left knows a person like a small town Baptist or Pentacostal minister. The left’s idea is limited to what they learned from movies like “Footloose.” In reality, most ministers have learned a lot of psychology from the books and colleges, but also from many, many experiences. As to their competence, I’ve sat through many a sermon, whether in college or church, and generally, (excluding the hard sciences) the level of intelligience, preparation and rationality is higher with the preachers. Now that may be anecodotal googoo–but maybe your own anecdotes may provide agreement.
Occam’s Beard – Occam’s Razor. (Hey, now I get the nickname!):
Deifying the dear leader is the oldest game in history.
The exception being Jewish, Christian, and to some extent even Muslim civilizations (with a twist).
China did it. Does it. Rome did it. Egypt and everywhere else all the time did it. It’s default position A.
Christianity can only do it so far, and never really with conviction. The closest they ever got was the “two swords” theory (Pope and King) or the Divine Right theory – proposed by renegade Protestant kings to justify their rule (I believe). It didn’t work.
The human without a transcendent will demand one and have one at all costs. It will kill and enslave to get one and keep one. The one it has will always be a tyrant ruling subjects. If he is not, the subjects will get another tyrant.
There is no comparable deification from the right for one simple reason – the right basically accepts the doctrine of original sin which applies to everyone, even the king.
You want freedom again? You’ll need orthodoxy again. It’s the only thing that ever gave freedom. It’s the only thing that ever fought for freedom. It’s the only thing that can ever hold onto freedom and allow for creativity and joy and good things in life. It’s the only thing that can insure there is an eternal revolution so that things can only for so long remain rotten and static and elitist.
There is nothing magic or lucky about the solution to our problems.
Mike Mc. Says:
June 13th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Well, I don’t particularly agree with that. Louis XIV of France was Catholic, if I’m not mistaken. Adam Smith and the leading thinkers of the Scottish and English Enlightenment, as well as America’s Founding Fathers, were Protestant.
You’re right that the default state of humanity, across all times and cultures, is tyranny and hereditary dynasty. The Founders understood that, which is why they crafted a government with a separation of powers, so that no individual or faction could gain too much power. Our elite political class has been steadily chipping away at it ever since.
Ok Neo, My bad, sorry.
I do think its a little bit premature to call this the beginning of the end. He does have 2-1/2 years left.
Though on the plus side, the country on the whole has been drifting mildly right since the fall of the Soviet Union – maybe earlier. The only way Obama could survive such a world was to pretend all along. Now that the mask is off, he has to drift slightly right to stay viable at all. That is bound to make the left mad which will eventually make everyone mad. Then there is the incompetency issue, which give the left more ammunition and an excuse to go after him.
In the end, Bush made everyone mad at him. The final straw was immigration reform, which bought him no friends on the left, but made plenty of enemies on the right. Bush did that out of some strange conviction.
Obama will have everyone mad at the end too. But it won’t be out of conviction. It wil just be a matter of reality catching up to the act.
Mike Mc.
Your analysis is perfect, but I think you miss a practical element.
The progressive movement over the last 100 years has steadily increased our freedeom in some areas (birth control being one of them), while simultaneously removing a very fundamental freedom.
The freedom they remove is the freedom to raise your own children. They built institutions to raise your children for you, and took your money to do it, so that you would have to work more and have less time to raise your children.
Restoring orthodoxy may be mostly about setting people free to raise their own children again. Its a feedback loop. The orthodox require the right to raise their own children. Raising your own children causes orthodoxy. Is it the chicken or the egg that comes first?
I think its right to raise children that comes first. That is my rallying cry: “Freedom is culturally conservative.” We may differ on that. But keep in mind that if you analyze the actions of the progressive tradition over the last 100 years, the government takeover of child-rearing came first. Various other progressive mechanisms and policies came later.
James
James,
Plato said something about whoever controls educating the children controls society. His “Republic” has been the blueprint for every western tyranny since he wrote it.
I do not necessarily agree with you that birth control is a “freedom”. In fact I am sure now that I disagree with that sentiment. I couldn’t exactly explain why though. There was a time when I would have agreed, but then I’ve re-read the papal encyclical Humane Vitae a time or two since recently (or the relevant sections of it).
That doc was written in 1968 I think. It was the Pope’s justification for why he did not accept birth control for Catholics. Everyone thought he would. His commission recommended that eh do so. He decided not to and wrote Humanae Vitae as an answer why.
The encyclical was loudly and openly criticized then, and has basically been ignored since.
The problem is that when you read it, especially the warnings about birth control and what it would lead to….
He was right.
Across the board, and all around he was right.
He was right in so many areas it is now painful to admit.
He was right so profoundly that it is doubly painful to realize that we are paying the price in spades for not listening then.
I never wanted the Pope to be right on that one/. I never thought he was. Then, when you re-read and know where we are now….
From the encyclical for those who might want to read a few of the relevant sections:
Consequences of Artificial Methods
17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings–and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation–need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
Limits to Man’s Power
Consequently, unless we are willing that the responsibility of procreating life should be left to the arbitrary decision of men, we must accept that there are certain limits, beyond which it is wrong to go, to the power of man over his own body and its natural functions–limits, let it be said, which no one, whether as a private individual or as a public authority, can lawfully exceed. These limits are expressly imposed because of the reverence due to the whole human organism and its natural functions, in the light of the principles We stated earlier, and in accordance with a correct understanding of the “principle of totality” enunciated by Our predecessor Pope Pius XII. (21)
Concern of the Church
18. It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a “sign of contradiction.” (22) She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.
Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter–only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.
In preserving intact the whole moral law of marriage, the Church is convinced that she is contributing to the creation of a truly human civilization. She urges man not to betray his personal responsibilities by putting all his faith in technical expedients. In this way she defends the dignity of husband and wife. This course of action shows that the Church, loyal to the example and teaching of the divine Savior, is sincere and unselfish in her regard for men whom she strives to help even now during this earthly…
Mike Mc,
You may be right that birth control is a bad freedom, but it is still a freedom. We are free to sin or be virtuous.
The question of government is to decide when a freedom is bad enough, that government power should be used to stop it – ie take away the freedom.
In making that determination, two arguments come into play.
1) Is the freedom in question bad?
2) If you hand the government sufficient power to restrict the freedom, then is the result even worse?
The second question is the difficult one. In my experience, the Catholic church never even tries to answer it. It only tries to answer the first question, and then assumes the answer to the second question is “no”.
If you search through the churches writings, I don’t think you will find attempts to answer the second question.
James
“ATLASSHRUGS” reports that “Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said he had a one-on-one meeting with Obama, in which President Obama told him that he was still a Muslim, the son of a Muslim father, the stepson of Muslim stepfather, that his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims, and that he was sympathetic towards the Muslim agenda.”
Of course, Obama’s Muslim sympathy endears him to the MSM. His narcissisism less so.
Why the gush from Obama now? He’s seeking worship now that it is dwindling from the usual sources.
” . . . the eternal students of a vast lethargic transnational campus for whom global compassion and the multicultural pose are merely the modish gloss on a cult of radical grandiose narcissism”–Mike Mc.
That’s inspired and poetic. Robinson Jeffers would agree.
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/be-angry-at-the-sun/
Occam’s Beard wrote,
“Perhaps neo or someone else with insight into psychology can explain why leftists are so uniquely prone to deifying their leaders.”
As a counterpoint, I offer six words:
For ^some^ righties, Sarah Palin. Beware!
Looking for leadership Obama demonstrates petulance instead. The MSM notices. So did everyone else. So, now we all know that the Dope is in way, way over his head. Now we can only pray that the world is not thrown into chaos.
Bobby Jindal took off his gloves and got his hands dirty trying to minimize the damage from the oil spill. He is a wonderful role model for someone who, like the Dope (and his court jesters), are wondering what leadership is all about. Do you think they might look in that direction? Nah! Not a clue.
Again with the Palin-bashing! Beware of what?
Mike Mc.
In support of your view of ∅bama illustrating an absence, a lack, ∅bama has often reminded me of the Gertude Stein quote, “There’s no there there.” (My choosing the symbol for the empty set to grace his name also indicates my POV.)
As in doing something about the cleanup: nothing in seven weeks.
Oblio wrote,
“Again with the Palin-bashing! Beware of what?”
Beware of deifying someone who is after all mortal, replete with virtues and vices, good points and shortcomings.
If that’s Palin bashing, so be it. I see it as sober-minded realism. I really like Ms. Palin, but I’m not about to fall into the lefties’ trap of worshiping a promising leader. To me, that’s not “bashing”; that’s eyes wide open: credit where due, hesitancy where due — unlike what we’re all seeing over there on the left, except when it’s too darn late.
@Oblio: indeed, that was not Palin bashing. More like (pick any or all) a red-herring, grasping at straws, or merely trying to change the subject.
Curtis and Mike Mc., I understand where you’re going with this, but the paradox for me is that people who nominally at least oppose religion and irrationality generally (no offense intended there; by irrationality I mean belief without proof) so enthusiastically embrace …irrationality and pseudo-religion. Tell leftists that Obama’s feet stink after a basketball game and they view that assertion as a matter for the field of honor.
No.
Nice try at moral equivalence, though. Supporting someone, or agreeing with someone’s proposed policies, is not the same as worshiping someone.
Point out where any pro-American type has gushed that Palin is “like a God,” or that she has claimed she could make the oceans recede and heal the earth, that she is the one we’ve been waiting for, or glassy-eyed followers making up a Palin salute, and you’d be sneaking up on a cogent point. Until then, back to DU with you. No one — no one — has deified Palin. I defy you to provide evidence otherwise.
Not much answer, M J R. I don’t think Palin’s admirers are deifying her; she hasn’t had Newsweek’s Washington bureau chief say, “She sort of like God.” I haven’t seen anyone here deifying her. But if someone did, what would be the consequence? Where is the danger? That’s what I want to know.
And yes, ELC, M J R tried to change the subject with one of the Leftists’ favorite fallacies–tu quoque.
Many of my liberal friends are starting to say, “This is why I supported Hillary! This would never have happened if she were president!” I’m keeping my eye out for the first among the press to introduce that theme.
That could represents a face-saving out for many liberal commentators, even if it amounts to a strategic retreat. It would mean increasing trouble for you-know-who.
Let me save comrade MJR some trouble:
“But…but…Bush! Cheney! Halliburton!”
You’re welcome.
Not changing the subject, just offering a perspective you don’t like. My original post specified “for ^some^ righties”, emphasis in the original.
Those “^some^” righties do not include thinkers such as we have here — except perhaps for those who prefer to look ^only^ at the other guys’ views and standard-bearers critically, but not their own.
Yes, unfortunately, ^some^ righties are as uncritical of right-leaning ideas and personalities as (too) many lefties are on the other side [substitute left-leaning for right-leaning, obviously]. I know a couple, and they can be very unthinking, somewhat analogous to so many lefties’ knee-jerkism, except I tend to agree with the righties’ views.
For those “^some^: righties, there is, unfortunately, not so much a moral equivalence, but an unfortunate mirror-image effect I wish I didn’t observe on my side (and most of your side) of things.
I have absolutely no use for the hyenas who can do little but screech “Bush” “Cheney’ “Halliburton”.
I think you know that . . . or you aren’t bothering to ^read^ and consider what I’m trying to say.
If I’m anything I’m a non-leftie. A cross between conservative and libertarian. What a couple of you have thrown at me is juvenile. I have ^NO^ use for lefties whatsoever.
Some commenters, so sorry to have interrupted your non-thinking fest.
G’night.
James Says: June 13th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Ok Neo, My bad, sorry.
I do think its a little bit premature to call this the beginning of the end. He does have 2-1/2 years left.
He may have, BUT…
Blogger Robin of Berkeley on the American Thinker blog site poses this: A Shrink Asks: What’s Wrong with Obama?
(Emphasis mine)
“Because Obama will not change. He will not learn from his mistakes. He will not grow and mature from on-the-job experience. In fact, over time, Obama will likely become a more ferocious version of who he is today.
“Why? Because this is a damaged person. Obama’s fate was sealed years ago growing up in his strange and poisonous family. Later on, his empty vessel was filled with the hateful bile of men like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.
“Obama will not evolve; he will not rise to the occasion; he will not become the man he was meant to be. This is for one reason and one reason alone:
“He is not capable of it.”
Her conclusions match those of mine in my earlier post “Don’t forget the money angle, Paul”, so naturally I may be a bit biased in the matter.
–
Who? Name one.
I follow Free Republic a lot. I would classify it as one of the most rightest of the right wing sites. I have seen NO ONE ‘deify’ Sarah. No one.
If it’s not happening there, it’s not happening.
I for one LOVE Sarah and consider myself a Palinista. I think we right wingers know there’s only one God, and don’t fall into any such traps as the liberals do in that regard. I’m wondering where MJR is finding those people.
FWIW, I’m kinda more libertarian that conservative.
@Paul in Houston: Scary. I’ve thought the same about Obama, but not from any psychological angle except history. There is a trajectory in tyranny. Hitler is the perfect example, but almost any leftist/socialist/communist/fascist historical leader will do. They are ALL the same thing with slight variations in method and reach is all.
They all have majority support. They all are relatively mild in the beginning. Any warnings about them are ridiculed or seen as no big deals or rationalized by saying they will learn on the job, etc.
In the end, the logic of the starting point means that they will always get worse and worse; more tyrannical and outrageous as time goes on. You think they can’t up the ante any more, and they always do. Finally, only after it is too late and too much damage has been done, and bridges crossed that cannot be uncrossed do people wake up and realize how scr%$ed they are.
I have been to Germany many times. The people there are as normal and nice as can be. There was a time though when all those good people gave Hitler all the chance he needed. At some point, they were committed and it was too late. Hitler took years to ‘mature’ into the Hitler he became. Obama has only been at this for a year and a half. Another few years, maybe half a year and he will never be stopped. This November is do or die for America, and the odds are against us.
2. For all the people on the Palin discussion: To say she has been deified by anyone is ludicrous. That’s the typical moral equivalence deflect the argument dodge that leftists do in their sleep. Any non-leftist who does it is just doing what he/she has been trained to do in our intellectually bankrupt culture.
Occam’s Beard wrote:
[first quoting MJR] “Not changing the subject, just offering a perspective you don’t like. My original post specified “for ^some^ righties”, emphasis in the original.
“Who? Name one.”
Letter-writers to sites like CNN and USAToday. Generally speaking, people with less upstairs than what we see here (for example).
And I personally know someone who’s like that (but who hasn’t written any letters that I know of).
It’s out there. Can’t help that, wish it weren’t so.
JuliB mused:
“I’m wondering where MJR is finding those people.”
I do not mean “deify”or “worship” to be taken literally.
Interestingly, since there’s a pronounced strain of Judaeo-Christian religiosity on the right [and I don’t mean the liberation theology kind, but genuine God-centered rather than human-centered theology], there is much less of a tendency to “deify” or “worship” on the right than I see on the left — where, for the greater part, if there is God at all, He’s more a sentiment or something and less a real presence. Conclusion: lefties are much, much more susceptible to ^figurative^ deification and worship of their standard-bearer than are righties.
But I’ve seen it on the right, too [see above]. Can’t help that, wish it weren’t so.
Mike MC: about Germany—Hitler came to power through a backroom deal. His party did not receive a majority—nor even a plurality, except one brief time—of the popular vote (until after he was already Chancellor, when you can’t say the German elections were exactly fair). See this.
The reality is most managers and ceo’s of average size companies in America could have handled lead man/woman and effective spokesman on this oil spill. But the left, Obama and the MSM despise those capitalist pigs one and all. Their myopic view of capitalism bad, socialism good, brought us to where we are.
I might add those effective managers and ceo’s are effective precisely because they know hard work and focus, not a deified image along with crafty media spin, will save more beaches.
Neo – Okay.
On the other hand, When the Reichstag voted on the Enabling Act, it passed 441 to 84. All 84 dissenting votes were Social Democrats. Not one member of the Catholic Center party voted against it.
That’s a big majority, and that is what allowed him to do the rest.
He did not seize power. Nor did Obama. WHo is the tyrant who did, at first?
That’s my point.
And what was Hitler’s support level from 1933 to, say, 1943?
Mike Mc: The reason I posted that excerpt was not to pick on you. I have noticed over and over again that people either insinuate or flatly state that Hitler was elected by the Germans. He was not. I think it is an important point. My secondary point is that the Enabling Act was passed through a combination of very vicious physical threats and lies. It did not pass because people wanted it. We actually don’t know what the German people really wanted, except by the indications of those first few elections, in which Hitler did not get anywhere near a majority.
But by then, it was too late. Your point—that tyrannies grow—is certainly one I do not disagree with.
Conservatives don’t deify politicians for one simple reason. The best and brightest politician is merely chosen to skillfully communicate he is powerless and the answer lies with the people unleashed from govt obstruction.
M J R, I am confused about your point. You agree that “deifying” leaders is more prevalent on the Left than the Right. You seem to want to score some point by saying that people whom we haven’t seen are “deifying” someone who wasn’t part of the discussion in the first place. To what purpose are you making this point?
I am relieved that you aren’t a Leftist. Just be careful about your friend tu quoque.
Something has gone crazy when Maureen Dowd and Neo hit the same notes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/opinion/13dowd.html?ref=opinion
“But he [Obama] is an elitist, too, as well as thin-skinned and controlling.”
Falling out of love indeed.
Oblio wrote:
“M J R, I am confused about your point. You agree that “deifying” leaders is more prevalent on the Left than the Right. You seem to want to score some point by saying that people whom we haven’t seen are “deifying” someone who wasn’t part of the discussion in the first place. To what purpose are you making this point?”
The purpose of my original point is that right-minded [in both senses of the phrase] folks should be on their [our] guard against making too much of someone’s personality, attractive and compelling as it may be. That was my “beware”. We don’t want to elevate someone to where s/he comes to personify a point or points of view, because that person is fallible and we just may eventually come to rue his/her shortcomings in our erstwhile leader.
Specifically, I find a lot to like about Ms. Palin, but I also find shortcomings there. I will defend her against the hysterics and nincompoopisms of the left, but I will also be willing to soberly discuss her shortcomings — which, to my sense of things, are in fact there.
I wasn’t trying to score a point. I had hoped to be making one.
Oblio continued:
“I am relieved that you aren’t a Leftist.”
Makes two of us.
Oblio concluded:
“Just be careful about your friend tu quoque.”
Interesting; I’d been introduced to this expression only within the last year or three.
As I’ve been laboring to make plain, I don’t think I’ve been tu quoquing [so to speak]; I’ve been guarding against being too smug on our side while we revel in the idiocies of the other side’s fallen messiah — smug in the sense that were Palin ever to advance to the presidency, I fear we will have made too much of her personality as the answer to all our problems, and we will have egg on our faces just like our leftie friends have egg on theirs now.
And our best defense against that is to look, (again) soberly, with eyes wide open at what we have in Ms. Palin now, ^before^ a situation turns up in which we possibly make fools of ourselves.
SteveH gets it right:
The best and brightest politician is merely chosen to skillfully communicate he is powerless and the answer lies with the people unleashed from govt obstruction.
While I think Sarah Palin would be a vast improvement over the current occupant of the White House, and would gladly vote for her, no one politician has all the answers to America’s problems. No human should be deified, especially not a politician of any stripe. They work for us, at least they’re supposed to. It’s time they were reminded of that come November.
The question about Palin is not whether she’s ideal, 100% in everything, but whether she’s the best of the field.
From which we should be looking at the field, if we have the stomach.
Palin is the best out there as of now, if we take it that someone like Gingrich could never get elected.
Those two are both good because they have the correct principles. They know, in general, what works and what doesn’t; what’s good and what’s not; what America is and what it isn’t.
Palin would be miles ahead of Obama. She’d be a huge vast improvement on any Dem at all since all Dems (now) have their principles wrong.
If you have the right principles, and are somewhat incompetent, you won’t do much harm anyway, and lots of good will happen based on the principles.
If you have the wrong principles, like Obama and all Dems, your very competence is the cause of huge harm. Obama’s incompetence now is as much a benefit as it is a disaster. Some of it blocks the implementation of his unreal starting positions.
Sarah Palin, since she entered the national stage, has shown more guts, gumption and good sense than Obama, Pelosi, Reid, the MSM, the elite and even 90% of Republicans.
She’s is more of a man than any of the men, and more of a woman that most of the women.
She would be an excellent first female US Pres.
Do you have any idea how pathetic that sounds? I cited, inter alia, Evan Thomas, editor of Newsweek, Judith Warner and David Brooks (columnists at the New York Times), and you in rebuttal cite some anonymous a-holes?
You’ve got to pick up your game. Cite someone on the right that someone has heard of, not some guy at the end of the bar after a Raiders game. For example, a statement by Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson, a nationally prominent Republican politico, or someone on Fox News.
I like the “our” — that was a nice touch, as concern trolls go, inviting the conclusion that “we” are on the same — pro-American — side. Here’s the tipoff: only leftists even think about Palin at this point, and they obsess endlessly about every aspect — and I do mean every aspect — of her.
Our next president will need to be able to withstand the screams and groans that an austerity budget will produce. Reagan withstood. It took a couple of years– but then . . . and how!
Obama’s incompetence now is as much a benefit as it is a disaster–Mike Mc.
I’ve said the same thing in a different way: Obama is worth more to the Republicans than to the Democrats. My ever near conspiratorial suspicions are on high alert. The truth about Martin Luther King Jr. was suppressed by his martydom. Exponentially so for Ghandi. JFK.
Occam’s Beard,
I’ve always appreciated your comments here, and I expect I will continue to do so after this tempest-in-a-teapot.
But I do think it’s time to give it a rest.
No, I do not have a specific named person in mind. My “beware” was aimed a right-leaning people generally — ^including^ the “guy at the end of the bar after a Raiders game”.
You write, “I like the “our” — that was a nice touch, as concern trolls go, inviting the conclusion that “we” are on the same — pro-American — side.”
I don’t know what the %$#@ you want at this point. My use of “our” was genuine. If you’re nevertheless skeptical, that’s your right and privilege.
Going forward, maybe I won’t be appreciating your comments as much after all. I’m sorry for ^me^ in that regard.
Maybe it’s Sarah Palin’s competence that scares the hell out of people. Reminds me of all the fun crap we got away with in school when the oblivious substitute teacher showed up instead of the real competent teacher.
OK. So …uh…. basically you didn’t have a point, and essentially making up crap.
Somehow I believe I’ve find the strength to carry on.
Not “making up crap”; reaching back for incidents in my experience that are anecdotal but are shared in good faith, despite not having recorded chapter-and-verse citations.
Any idea what “in good faith” means?
Carry on indeed.
Tell Axelroad I said “Hey.”
Er…make that…”Axerod.”